inverter generators

Ah, but it has brushes. If it didn't need commutation, it wouldn't need = a segmented rotor either -- same purpose.

As far as I know, the homopolar generator is the ONLY generator with a = rotating construction, contiguous rotor and DC output.

It's trivial to make DC from a linear motor (cf. railgun), of course, = but reality doesn't allow you infinite rails or magnets.

Tim

--=20 Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website:

RFI count: 1

Tell me, can you make a continuous (i.e. DC) electrostatic charge without oscillating components? Can you make a continuous electromagnetic charge without parts oscillating (homopolar aside)?

I thought not :)

No, RFI has nothing to do with it.

All electrostatic generators require charge transfer, e.g. brushes, spark gaps, etc. These act in the same manner as a commutator.

Tim

There is **no** commutation (as Jim stated) and no polarity change. Brushes do not make commutation. It generates a DC charge.

Here, I'll make it a little easier for you to look it up.

As far as I know, the homopolar generator is the ONLY generator with a rotating construction, contiguous rotor and DC output.

It's trivial to make DC from a linear motor (cf. railgun), of course, but reality doesn't allow you infinite rails or magnets.

Tim

--


"Jim Wilkins"  wrote in message 
news:a8ad1edc-dc87-468c-b6a5-2b843b255597@y13g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> A Wimshurst machine generates DC from a rotor without a commutator.

find

that's

problem

anyway.

it,

or

don't have a transformer at the input,=20

transformery as transformers, though it's=20

No Tim; only induction motors are transformers, synchronous motors and brush motors are not like a transformer at all.

pole type motors and legacy transformerized=20

for all those SMPS's...

How about redesigning refrigerators and household AC and heat pumps around VFDs? Let's start where there is some efficiency reward for the extra design work

still most computers.

Commutators=20

=20

This thread reminded of the old time dynamotors from back in the 1950s and 1960s when i was growing up. I was about 10 or so and got to see one running; about 250 VA i think, and not much larger than an overlong starter of the day.

I used to think it's because they can put half the input DC below the zero line, thus *inverting* it. That proved not to be the case.

I found the following rather useless definition. It makes NO sense.

============================================ Why is it called an inverter and not a converter? A reasonable question and really that is what the job of an inverter is, converting DC power to AC power and that is the precise reason why it is named an inverter rather than converter.

converter.http://www.renewablepowernews.com/archives/1320 ============================================

This is a far more satisfying answer:

============================================ Q: Why are they called inverters?

A: Originally converters were large rotating electromechanical devices. Essentially they combined a synchronous ac motor with a commutator so that the commutator reversed its connections to the ac line exactly twice per cycle. The results is ac-in dc-out. If you invert the connections to a converter you put dc in and get ac out. Hence an inverter is an inverted converter. For more information about such converters see

(thanks to Karl W.Berger, PE for this answer).

===========================================

mike